Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dally M proving laughable AGAIN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dally M proving laughable AGAIN

    Was just reading through the articles this morning from the wash up of last weeks footy, and to my amusement came across the Dally M votes. Steve Menzies polling; Tedesco 3, Crichton 2 and Tuivassa Sheck 1.

    I mean, I already knew the system was laughable and so does everyone else, but the amount of problems I can pinpoint with the polling from the game. First off...RTS? Yeah, he made a key defensive stop in the first few minutes but other than that? Thought he was one of their worst, let alone worthy of a point. To add to that, the irony of AGAIN, a player polling in a side that really, got put to the sword 32-12 by us and we didn’t look like we stepped out of second gear. I can think of a plethora of players from our side who deserve a point over RTS, let alone from Warriors. Morris? Two tries? Aimed up in defence? JWH? Defensive freak in that game + ran like a menance in attack? Walker? Two try assists and held his own defence wise all game? Even players like the Ice and Hutch I’d pick over RTS based off that game for a Dally M point. I’d even go as far to say I didn’t think Teddy deserved 3 points, and whilst he was solid, overplayed his hand and I thought we
    had a few more “stand outs” than him that game. The farcical decisions by the “experts” who are giving out votes each week shows more and more how integral it is to have a system overhaul.

    Am I clutching at straws? Can anyone here tell me RTS actually deserved a point let alone a mention, or are we on the same page that A) The system is a point of laughter every week and B) Menzies has clearly had a few too many head knocks.
    Last edited by tloos1999; 04-06-2021, 02:03 PM.

  • #2
    It wasn't Third Man In Thaiday again was it?
    Exonerate the West Memphis Three - www.wm3.org

    Comment


    • #3
      In the AFL the 3 main officiating umpires not the goal or boundary ones cast their votes after each game for the Brownlow Medal - AFL's best and fairest. - Rothmans Medal used to be the same -refs 3/2/1's.

      It's all just a marketing tool for the DT and FOX the Dally M's with some politics thrown in as well to cause controversy to sell papers and subscriptions.
      Last edited by King Salvo; 04-06-2021, 02:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        What... you're saying that Parra's #9 and Latrell haven't been the two obvious standouts this season?!?

        Comment


        • #5
          Have to agree. I also notice that in Parra V Tigpies Parra got all the points even tho they just scrapped in. They seem to be under instructions to minimise points for the Roosters.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kramer View Post
            Have to agree. I also notice that in Parra V Tigpies Parra got all the points even tho they just scrapped in. They seem to be under instructions to minimise points for the Roosters.
            In Raiders vs Sharks game too that Raiders won by 2 - all the points to Raiders players- yes people will say it's subjective but.........................

            Comment


            • #7
              Do they aggregate the scores over the years? I swear the rule is basically:
              - Winning team takes all the points by default.
              - When we play and put 40 on a team, our opposition's frontrunner for Dally M will get sympathy points.
              - If we lose, we get no points. Even if (for example) Teddy scores a triple and runs 300m and we've lost by a small margin despite 1/2 of our team getting season-ending injuries and the other 1/2 of our team being reserve-grade.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tloos1999 View Post
                Was just reading through the articles this morning from the wash up of last weeks footy, and to my amusement came across the Dally M votes. Steve Menzies polling; Tedesco 3, Crichton 2 and Tuivassa Sheck 1.

                I mean, I already knew the system was laughable and so does everyone else, but the amount of problems I can pinpoint with the polling from the game. First off...RTS? Yeah, he made a key defensive stop in the first few minutes but other than that? Thought he was one of their worst, let alone worthy of a point. To add to that, the irony of AGAIN, a player polling in a side that really, got put to the sword 32-12 by us and we didn’t look like we stepped out of second gear. I can think of a plethora of players from our side who deserve a point over RTS, let alone from Warriors. Morris? Two tries? Aimed up in defence? JWH? Defensive freak in that game + ran like a menance in attack? Walker? Two try assists and held his own defence wise all game? Even players like the Ice and Hutch I’d pick over RTS based off that game for a Dally M point. I’d even go as far to say I didn’t think Teddy deserved 3 points, and whilst he was solid, overplayed his hand and I thought we
                had a few more “stand outs” than him that game. The farcical decisions by the “experts” who are giving out votes each week shows more and more how integral it is to have a system overhaul.

                Am I clutching at straws? Can anyone here tell me RTS actually deserved a point let alone a mention, or are we on the same page that A) The system is a point of laughter every week and B) Menzies has clearly had a few too many head knocks.
                I agree with the 3, 2 and 1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ex players should not judge games involving, and allocate votes/points to players who play for, their previous club(s). The obvious, actual and perceived conflicts of interest and impaired judgements that result are quite pathetic and a joke. It is not right, but it is so easy to rectify. I don't see anything happening to change it unfortunately.
                  MRR or Rabid

                  Some people believe supporting the Roosters
                  is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed
                  with that attitude. I can assure you it is
                  much, much more important than that.


                  (1981 Bill Shankly quote variation)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X